Wednesday, October 31, 2012

Come next Tuesday night, we’ll get a resolution (let’s hope) to a great ongoing battle of 2012: not just the Presidential election between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, but the one between the pundits trying to analyze that race with their guts and a new breed of statistics gurus trying to forecast it with data.

In Election 2012 as seen by the pundits–political journalists on the trail, commentators in cable-news studios–the campaign is a jump ball. There’s a slight lead for Mitt Romney in national polls and slight leads for Barack Obama in swing-state polls, and no good way of predicting next Tuesday’s outcome beyond flipping a coin. ...

Reader Comments and Retorts

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

You are incapable of basic reasoning. Probably mentally deranged. As such, you may not have weapons.

Typical Sam Hutcheson: Can't ever win an argument with his philosobabble, so it's straight to the ad hominem and the crap-flinging. Same old, same old.

The idea that the Second Amendment either protects the right to own nuclear weapons or the whole Second Amendment is little more than a whim that's subject to legislative or judicial rescission at any time is utterly absurd. Putting aside the sheer lunacy of such a position, the primary purpose of the Second Amendment is to guard against government tyranny, specifically *U.S.* government tyranny. In what scenario would a private U.S. citizen have reason to deploy tactical nuclear weapons on United States soil? The whole idea is absurd.

Dude, circle up the jerk reaction all you want, but I assure you, you are just not following basic logic and concepts of structured debate here. If that is because you're stupid, well, come to grips with your limitations or whatever.

Yes, yes, you're the only person smart enough to figure out that either the Second Amendment protects the right to private possession of nuclear weapons or the whole Second Amendment is a sham. Consider this a pat on the head.

Putting aside the sheer lunacy of such a position, the primary purpose of the Second Amendment is to guard against government tyranny, specifically *U.S.* government tyranny. In what scenario would a private U.S. citizen have reason to deploy tactical nuclear weapons on United States soil? The whole idea is absurd.

If the point of the 2nd is to guard against government tyranny, and the potentially tyrannical government has access to nuclear weapons, then the only means to combat that tyrannical government would be "MAD" via citizenry held warheads.

The idea that the Second Amendment either protects the right to own nuclear weapons or the whole Second Amendment is little more than a whim that's subject to legislative or judicial rescission at any time is utterly absurd. Putting aside the sheer lunacy of such a position, the primary purpose of the Second Amendment is to guard against government tyranny, specifically *U.S.* government tyranny. In what scenario would a private U.S. citizen have reason to deploy tactical nuclear weapons on United States soil? The whole idea is absurd.

Compare this with current Supreme Court views the copyright clause. Despite increasing the protections to in some cases 120 years, the Supreme Court seems to have said that "for limited times" apparently means what ever Congress wants it to mean. So there is current support for this concept that you find utterly absurd on its face.

What's more, handguns are a really lousy deterrent against a tyrannical government. You want good rifles and (in particular) explosives.

Well yes. *Of course.* Anyone who spends even a nanosecond thinking tactically about the problem of preventing tyranny via the 2nd, in the modern world, must fundamentally agree that in order to prevent a government that has access to ####### DRONES THAT CAN BLOW UP HOUSES FROM TWO MILES HIGH becoming tyrannical, a resistance movement is going to need something more than a 9 mil with an extended clip.

Compare this with current Supreme Court views the copyright clause. Despite increasing the protections to in some cases 120 years, the Supreme Court seems to have said that "for limited times" apparently means what ever Congress wants it to mean. So there is current support for this concept that you find utterly absurd on its face.

There's no evidence anywhere that the Founders were OK with the possibility of "well regulated militia" being turned into "no militia" by judicial fiat or legislative rescission, and the fact no one attempted such a thing for generations after the Constitution was ratified is instructive. (And anyone, such as Sam, who claims the professional U.S. military that came later would have been seen by the Founders as less of a reason to have a citizen militia — or a reason to disband the militia entirely — rather than more of a reason, is incredibly uninformed.)

(And anyone, such as Sam, who claims the professional U.S. military that came later would have been seen by the Founders as less of a reason to have a citizen militia — or a reason to disband the militia entirely — rather than more of a reason, is incredibly uninformed.)

For the record, when I say things like 'you're stupid' what I mean is exemplified by this, where you show a complete inability to read for comprehension. Did you fail 5th grade, by chance?

I don't even think you'd get much pushback on automatic weapons, which are pretty much minimally required for any insurgency. I don't find Sam's take logically flawed at all - every rational person supports controls on both the classes of arms that can be privately owned, and the classes of people that can own them.

For the record, when I say things like 'you're stupid' what I mean is exemplified by this, where you show a complete inability to read for comprehension. Did you fail 5th grade, by chance?

No, I didn't.

As to your complaint, you just said this a few minutes ago:

If I were to say "the first clause of the 2nd Amendment specifically notes that the right to bear arms is connected with militia membership; in the modern world militias don't exist and have been replaced by professional armies. As such the 2nd is itself fundamentally archaic and out of touch with modern times" you'd probably have a coronary.

I guess you do have plausible deniability here, since you phrased it as a hypothetical, but I'd be surprised if it was truly divergent from your position on the matter, given all of your other claims and rantings and "logic."

There's no evidence anywhere that the Founders were OK with the possibility of "well regulated militia" being turned into "no militia" by judicial fiat or legislative rescission, and the fact no one attempted such a thing for generations after the Constitution was ratified is instructive.

There's no evidence anywhere that the Founders were OK with the possibility of "well regulated militia" being turned into "no militia" by judicial fiat or legislative rescission. (And anyone, such as Sam, who claims the professional U.S. military that came later would have been seen by the Founders as less of a reason to have a citizen militia — or a reason to disband the militia entirely — rather than more of a reason, is incredibly uninformed.)

There is no evidence that the Founders (putting aside the idea that we can devine the understanding of the 55 drafters and 13 state leaders that ratified) thought that 120 years was reasonable, yet here we are.

My point is only that we have current case law that seems to effectively read out a clause in the Constitution. The idea is not as absurd as you seem to think.

If the point of the 2nd is to guard against government tyranny, and the potentially tyrannical government has access to nuclear weapons, then the only means to combat that tyrannical government would be "MAD" via citizenry held warheads.

I think only one* country has ever developed nukes in order to threaten and hold hostage it's own citizenry- South Africa- but the idea was too nuts even for them - and hence SA became the first country t voluntarily relinquish nukes. Nuking youself is kind of self-defeating...

*I suppose the Government of North Korea would give serious consideration to nuking one its own provinces if such province was in open rebellion... but even in the case of North Korea- if you are facing a widespread and diverse rebellion- what good are nukes?

If we replace "nuclear weaponry/warheads" with "artillery" in Sams statement, does it make more sense? if in fact the 2nd was to ensure that the citizenry had adequate arms to defend itself from the government, how can you restrict private ownership of artillery? It's gonna be damn hard to win without it.

Ray: So when do you think that this should have been made public? And by whom? Should the president or the Atty. General call a press conference to announce every finding of every investigation, even if (as it turns out) it involves no real threat to national security?

Answer: The minute you (Holder) learn that the CIA's mistress was in possession of classified information, inform the President, who should then decide whether to at least temporarily relieve the director of his duties, pending the investigation. Suspending the Director would of course be a public action. And short of that, the public at least had a right to know that the CIA director's mistress was found with classified documents, and the President had decided not to suspend him.

As it turned out, Petraeus resigned, largely for reasons of protocol (i.e. his officers' code) and embarrassment more than anything else. He could have continued in his post on the substantive merits of the case; it's not as if once his indiscretion was discovered internally there was any chance of blackmail.

What you simply won't acknowledge is the likelihood that since the investigation had already determined that no threat to national security was involved, there was no reason at that point to take it up the ladder, and no reason to make public what turned out to be a matter of no great importance to anyone but Petraeus, Broadwell, and Mrs. Petraeus. I'm not sure why the public has to be breathlessly informed about every possible security breach, when the possibility has been investigated and found not to be a reality.

You still haven't opined on why Cantor kept quiet, if this was a matter of such great importance that it had to be aired in public immediately. Was the GOP House leader part of a Democratic conspiracy?

And you also haven't addressed the question of what should be done with an FBI agent who bypasses his chain of command, and takes it upon himself for political reasons to send information to an opposition party congressman. Should he not have to answer for his actions, or do you look upon him as some sort of a whistleblowing hero?

I guess you do have plausible deniability here, since you phrased it as a hypothetical, but I'd be surprised if it was truly divergent from your position on the matter, given all of your other claims and rantings and "logic."

Well, Joe, you can continue along this path of making up #### that you think I probably believe, using your secret X-Men powers to read minds over the internet, or you can have a conversation with me and the things I actually say in this forum. Your choice. I have little faith you will go with the rational, logically sound one, to be perfectly honest.

If we replace "nuclear weaponry/warheads" with "artillery" in Sams statement, does it make more sense? if in fact the 2nd was to ensure that the citizenry had adequate arms to defend itself from the government, how can you restrict private ownership of artillery? It's gonna be damn hard to win without it.

Thank you. The point isn't nukes, per se. It's *arms.* Nukes are arms. Under no rational interpretation of the term "arms," which is a shortening of "armaments," can nukes not be considered "arms. The text of the second protects the right to keep and bear *arms.* As such, unless you are restricting the right to bear arms, you must not restrict the right to bear nukes. So, if someone wants to defend the unlimited, unregulated right to bear ARMS they must defend the right to bear NUCLEAR ARMS. If they want to defend the right to bear SOME ARMS but not NUCLEAR ARMS then they must explain, in some rational detail, why their choice of arms is necessary and proper while artillery, or Predator drones, or nuclear suitcases are not.

The point is that pretty much everyone, including 2nd Amendment "absolutists" like Joe, draw a line in the sand that says "well, no, not ALL ARMS; clearly nukes and B1 bombers aren't open game for everyone." But at that point, you've already given up the universal "right to bear arms" as a human right that shall not be infringed. You've already said "I'm okay with infringing the right to bear arms in the case of nuclear arms." And at that point, you have to explain why your arbitrary decision to limit arms to not include nukes is fine and good, while Bill Bradley's arbitrary decision to limit arms to not include nukes, "assault rifles" or 9mm handguns with extended clips is tyrannical.

The tangent about "defense from a tyrannical US government" isn't a direct line descent from this argument. But as you say, and as anyone with any basic ability to think through the problem will certainly agree, if all you're protecting via the 2nd is the right to keep and bear handguns and scoped hunting rifles that have stocks modeled to look like AK-47's (so-called "assault rifles") then you're not really protecting the ability of the citizenry to deter a potentially tyrannical government.

If you have a rifle, a 9 mil and a box of bottle rockets and Barack Obama has a ####### squadron of Predator drones, you're not going to win your "defense against tyranny" engagement.

Well, Joe, you can continue along this path of making up #### that you think I probably believe, using your secret X-Men powers to read minds over the internet, or you can have a conversation with me and the things I actually say in this forum. Your choice. I have little faith you will go with the rational, logically sound one, to be perfectly honest.

Sam Hutcheson is complaining about others' ability to have a pleasant, "rational" conversation. That's rich.

The text of the second protects the right to keep and bear *arms.* As such, unless you are restricting the right to bear arms, you must not restrict the right to bear nukes.

Except for that pesky "well regulated" part, which liberals typically accuse conservatives of ignoring. And except, of course, for the fact that no U.S. citizen would ever have a reason to deploy tactical nuclear weapons on United States soil.

The point is that pretty much everyone, including 2nd Amendment "absolutists" like Joe, draw a line in the sand that says "well, no, not ALL ARMS; clearly nukes and B1 bombers aren't open game for everyone." But at that point, you've already given up the universal "right to bear arms" as a human right that shall not be infringed.

Except that no non-delusional person has ever claimed the Second Amendment is "absolute" for all people and/or all arms.

And at that point, you have to explain why your arbitrary decision to limit arms to not include nukes is fine and good, while Bill Bradley's arbitrary decision to limit arms to not include nukes, "assault rifles" or 9mm handguns with extended clips is tyrannical.

Well, among other reasons, when the Second Amendment tells us we have the right to "keep and bear arms," and then some liberal comes along and reduces the list of acceptable functional firearms to zero or nearly zero, the problem is self-evident (or should be, at least to anyone who isn't a dishonest gun-grabber).

Well, among other reasons, when the Second Amendment tells us we have the "right to keep and bear arms," and then some liberal comes along and reduces the acceptable list of functional firearms to zero, the problem is self-evident (or should be, at least to anyone who isn't a dishonest gun-grabber).

In any event it's non-responsive. The Second Amendment either is or is not absolute. In current practice there are numerous restrictions. Whether or not there ought be more and what form they should take is a political, not a Constitutional question. If the Second can't prevent prohibition of teenagers from purchasing firearms or ordinary folk from owning machine guns, it can't be invoked against regulation of clip size.

#8769 - I think I see your point: There's a system in place where the President is not informed until the investigation is over, and the AG worked that system to make sure the investigation didn't conclude until a time that was politically expediant.

OK; I can see that possibility. If that is the case, then I agree with you (again, presuming that I'm understanding you correctly): it's not a crime; it's not a scandal; it's just a pretty shitty thing to do.

How is it shitty?

Well, since you asked, let's examine it closer. But first, let's do this:

I want to make it clear that these comments are based on speculation regarding what the Attorney General may have done. I am not implying that this is what the AG did; I am not saying that there is evidence indicating that this is what the AG did. I am examining the possibility that this may have happened; and, if it did, why I labeled such activity as I have.

I had noted in my post that the AG had stated (in simplified terms) that relaying the facts of an investigation to anyone outside the FBI (be they Congress, the President, the Press, etc.) prior to the conclusion of the investigation, was forbidden under standard operating procedure. The AG's exact quote was:

"We do not share outside the Justice Department, outside the FBI, the facts of ongoing investigations."

According to the timeline on CNN.com that Mefisto so graciously provided in post # 8768, the President was informed on Thursday, Nov 8, two days after the election, of the investigation. Quoting from there:

White House spokesman Jay Carney says later: "The president was certainly surprised when he was informed about the situation regarding General Petraeus on Thursday."

Now if (and again, very heavy emphasis on the if, because we are just speculating) the investigation should and could have concluded on an earlier date, but did not, due to deliberate "delays" (for want of a better word) by the AG, for no other purpose than to keep the news from the President (and, in turn, the American public) until after the election; then that means that the AG deliberately gamed the system in order to:

1) Shield the President from responsibility regarding any potential fallout from the investigation;

2) Keep the facts of an investigation regarding a high ranking government official from the voting public prior to an election;

3) Delay the appointment of a replacement for Petraeus as head of the CIA.

For those reasons (among others) I label such activity, if it has occurred, as shitty.

Of course, shitty is in the eye of the beholder. Perhaps there are some who don't see deliberate deception as shitty behavior. As has been pointed out by several others, such behavior is quite common by politicians (a point with which I agree). Perhaps to some its frequency of occurrence lowers its level of shittyness. To others, gaming the system may merely be nothing more than how these things work, and therefore not at all shitty. As with all things shitty, your mileage may vary.

Now, as regards your other questions:

Do we really need the president to get a daily briefing on every investigation ever? Or are we going to base it on how well the story might sell to the tabloids?

If you're going to brief the president on every government official who's cheating on his wife, that's really going to cut into his golf game.

They create the impression that you're really not understanding what's being said. But then, that's just my opinion.

In any event it's non-responsive. The Second Amendment either is or is not absolute. In current practice there are numerous restrictions. Whether or not there ought be more and what form they should take is a political, not a Constitutional question. If the Second can't prevent prohibition of teenagers from purchasing firearms or ordinary folk from owning machine guns, it can't be invoked against regulation of clip size.

No one has ever claimed the Second Amendment, or just about any right, is absolute. If rights are absolute, then, e.g., prisons are unconstitutional because they deprive prisoners of "life, liberty," and/or "pursuit of happiness." No serious person would ever make such a claim.

The debate here is regarding the specious claim that the "well regulated militia" can be disbanded by judicial fiat or legislative whim without violating the rights inherent in the Second Amendment.

***

no U.S. citizen would ever have a reason to deploy tactical nuclear weapons on United States soil.

US citizens have had reason to bomb buildings on US soil and done so. To think that no one would use a nuke if given the chance is naive.

I thought "legal reason" was implicit in my comment above, but I guess I should have made it explicit.

If we replace "nuclear weaponry/warheads" with "artillery" in Sams statement, does it make more sense? if in fact the 2nd was to ensure that the citizenry had adequate arms to defend itself from the government, how can you restrict private ownership of artillery? It's gonna be damn hard to win without it.

Were private citizens allowed to own cannons and other similar weapons in 1800 or whenever? I'm sure local militias or people like privateers could, but they would generally have government permission to have them; could some random rich guy go out and buy a cannon keep it for personal use? I'm sure was completely impractical to do so, but the same goes for many modern weapons as well.

Generally speaking the types of weapons militia guys used then are the same weapons the vast majority of gun owners use now, weapons that have fairly common, legal civilian use, handguns as personal defense weapons and rifle/shotguns as sport/hunting/varmint weapons. I think laws try to limit these types of weapon are mostly pointless because so many are in circulation and are also illegal as they are the types of civilian weapons the founding fathers had in mind with the second amendment. Generally bans on fully automatic weapons are trickier, unlike a grenade launcher or flame thrower, you can reasonably use something like a fully automatic AR-15 for legal activities, although it doesn't give you much real benefit over the semi-automatic version.

As far as fighting tyranny goes, nobody is going to be fighting the army head on, but accurate semi-auto rifles are likely fine guerrilla weapons, as are improvised explosives made from many items that would be unlikely to ever be illegal.

Generally bans on fully automatic weapons are trickier, unlike a grenade launcher or flame thrower, you can reasonably use something like a fully automatic AR-15 for legal activities, although it doesn't give you much real benefit over the semi-automatic version.

In the service of fighting tyranny, the benefits of automatic fire would become readily apparent. That said, I do take the point of your post, and found it very thought provoking, but the issue I was getting at was that if regulation of firearms is permissible under the 2nd, you can't very well limit it without making some assumptions about the language - something "originalists" usually cringe at (not that I am associating you with that group).

I would like to point out that well regulated meant well trained in the 18th century vernacular. A clock was well regulated so it kept proper time. If we are trying to understand the founders original intent, this needs to be understood.

The minute you (Holder) learn that the CIA's mistress was in possession of classified information,

The CIA's mistress was in fact a former Army intelligence officer, a counterintelligence reservist, and apparently held a high security clearance, until it was revoked. To this day, there does not appear to be any evidence that these were not document to which she would have access, and I don't know that it was even established that she got them from Petraeus.

That security clearance has now been revoked for, among other reasons, the cavalier way she stored/treated these documents. I don't know how common these Sandy Berger incidents are, but I would be very surprised if it does not happen a hell of a lot more than we hear about, especially as computers, thumb drives, pdfs, etc., have made them so portable.

I don't know how common these Sandy Berger incidents are, but I would be very surprised if it does not happen a hell of a lot more than we hear about, especially as computers, thumb drives, pdfs, etc., have made them so portable.

DOD is a fairly large employer where I live. Folks I know who work at the DIA tell me that you can lose your clearance just for bringing an ipod on site.

I would like to point out that well regulated meant well trained in the 18th century vernacular.

The word "regulate" was also used in the commerce clause and the coinage clause, where it certainly did not mean "well-trained". In general at that time, the verb "to regulate" meant that a superior prescribed a rule or order for the management of some affair (close paraphrase of the 1771 Encyclopedia Britannica).

DOD is a fairly large employer where I live. Folks I know who work at the DIA tell me that you can lose your clearance just for bringing an ipod on site.

They may say it, but I don't know if I buy that it has that much of an effect. There are just too many damn leaks of classified material, and too many damn places to run into other, other than the Pentagon building itself.

In general at that time, the verb "to regulate" meant that a superior prescribed a rule or order for the management of some affair (close paraphrase of the 1771 Encyclopedia Britannica).

"Well-regulated" is an adjective, not a verb.

It's easy to find references to well regulated in 19th century writing. Here's the search on Google Books which finds well regulated clocks, well regulated minds, well regulated passions, well regulated workhouses, well regulated gas lights, and so on, in many context that can't possibly be referring. I'm fairly certain that well regulated passions doesn't refer to the US government's cockblocking department.

"Well trained" is wrong, but from usage, well ordered was frequently the clear context in many uses of well regulated. But, of course, orders from superiors is in fact one way to create a well ordered army, so that doesn't leave any nice bright lines.

The 19th century Progressive Dictionary of the English Language (in that list) has well-ordered as "having good regulations; well-ordered; as, a well-regulated mind" is similarly unhelpful as it leaves both interpretations intact as well.

So in the end, it would have been nice if they had cleaned up the language on that particular amendment. Yeah, you can't envision stuff like the word "gay" having such a large change in meaning over the centuries, but you can avoid having clauses in sentences possibly contradict each other. If I write "The Orioles needing an ace in the rotation, Baltimore needs to sign Jeff Francis," I know my editor's going to IM me and say "what the #### is that all about?"

I had noted in my post that the AG had stated (in simplified terms) that relaying the facts of an investigation to anyone outside the FBI (be they Congress, the President, the Press, etc.) prior to the conclusion of the investigation, was forbidden under standard operating procedure. The AG's exact quote was:

"We do not share outside the Justice Department, outside the FBI, the facts of ongoing investigations."

A ludicrous statement by Holder. One so cartoonish that it's hard to conceive that anyone could take it seriously.

Are we to believe that Clinton wasn't kept informed as to the progress of the Oklahoma City bombing investigation? Just to name one obvious example that should immediately beam people up from fantasy land.

And I saw an interview with former AG Alberto Gonzales today. He said he wouldn't have felt bound by protocol to tell the President. Yes, yes, dismiss his statements because he was appointed by Bush. Whatever. He was in the job.

As to the politicizing by politicians, I continue to - as my good friend Steve Treder would say - marvel at the insistence of people that this couldn't have happened. To take one example, Obama just admitted yesterday that he basically sent a naive Susan Rice out as a patsy to spread false information to the public on the Sunday shows back in September, when she was shoveling that BS about the Benghazi attack being the result of a protest over a video rather than a terrorist attack. For what conceivable reason I do not know, other than to pretend to the public that he had terrorism under control in advance of an election. So let's not pretend that Obama is above it all.

(Moreover, Obama's condescending chivalry towards Rice ("Don't blame her. Blame me."), which he would never have said if Rice were a man, should have gotten easily-offended leftists and feminists in hysterics. But, alas, we have heard nary a peep from them.)

"We do not share outside the Justice Department, outside the FBI, the facts of ongoing investigations."

Also, this statement is demonstrably false, as this investigation is indeed still ongoing - just this week they were taking boxes of evidence from Broadwell's house - and yet Holder shared it with Obama.

Is the standard "ongoing investigations" or is it "threat to national security"? Holder has said both, and yet these are in conflict.

That's not an argument, at least not unless there's some consequence to the fact that they're different parts of speech.

It's easy to find references to well regulated in 19th century writing. Here's the search on Google Books which finds well regulated clocks, well regulated minds, well regulated passions, well regulated workhouses, well regulated gas lights, and so on, in many context that can't possibly be referring. I'm fairly certain that well regulated passions doesn't refer to the US government's cockblocking department.

All of those seem perfectly consistent with the definition I gave.

"Well trained" is wrong, but from usage, well ordered was frequently the clear context in many uses of well regulated. But, of course, orders from superiors is in fact one way to create a well ordered army, so that doesn't leave any nice bright lines.

I'd like to think that the awkwardness of of the wording was intentional, that is that the amendment itself is just deliberately vague. But ultimately I'm not sure it really matters.

The practical interpretation of the Second that we are living is that people are allowed to bear arms without having to join any militia, but their access to arms is regulated, which includes some bans. It's neither of the absolutist interpretations, so neither side is happy with it, but the non-deranged don't get their panties in a bunch and it mostly seems to work. What stops it (and many other issues) from working is that the absolutist fix disrupts from developing sensible regulations, as evidenced by the political silence on the issue and the "conversation" that just transpired.

Are we to believe that Clinton wasn't kept informed as to the progress of the Oklahoma City bombing investigation? Just to name one obvious example that should immediately beam people up from fantasy land.

Could you name another example? That one's terrible. The bomb *had already gone off*. EDIT: I'm pretty sure Clinton heard about it without the FBI or AG needing to tell him.

To take one example, Obama just admitted yesterday that he basically sent a naive Susan Rice out as a patsy to spread false information to the public on the Sunday shows back in September, when she was shoveling that BS about the Benghazi attack being the result of a protest over a video rather than a terrorist attack.

(Moreover, Obama's condescending chivalry towards Rice ("Don't blame her. Blame me."), which he would never have said if Rice were a man, should have gotten easily-offended leftists and feminists in hysterics. But, alas, we have heard nary a peep from them.)

Moreover, Obama's condescending chivalry towards Rice ("Don't blame her. Blame me."), which he would never have said if Rice were a man, should have gotten easily-offended leftists and feminists in hysterics. But, alas, we have heard nary a peep from them

Oh, they've been peeping. They've been on TV telling us that those that criticize Rice are 'racist' and/or 'sexist.'

Oh, they've been peeping. They've been on TV telling us that those that criticize Rice are 'racist' and/or 'sexist.'

Yeah. What a horrible disservice these people are doing to minority women as a whole. "Hire them, they're just as qualified for these jobs as men -- but if you criticize them it is because you are racist/sexist."

Finding blame? He wants to take the blame (if there's blame). How is this not a clown show? Whether it is the WH, Justice, Intelligence, bureaucrats, etc. fault. I don't need to blame Obama or Rice, or anybody, it is total amateur hour.

Finding blame? He wants to take the blame (if there's blame). How is this not a clown show? Whether it is the WH, Justice, Intelligence, bureaucrats, etc. fault. I don't need to blame Obama or Rice, or anybody, it is total amateur hour.

Was referring to the Petraeus issue; Ray is very keen on Obama being to blame for ... something there.

//Do you folks live somewhere where the odds of such a thing are appreciably higher? Or do you have reason to believe you'd be the target of such a thing? (i.e. you have some valuable possessions, like the collected pre-1918 MLB boxscores?

It may be just that I've seen a few too many people do insanely shitty, sick things to other people, but I'm reluctant to live without a weapon in the house. Still and all, I try to keep a sense of humor about it.

INT. PAWN SHOP - DAY

TIGHT ON GLASS COUNTERTOP as an AR-180 ASSAULT RIFLE WITH SCOPE is laid beside a number of other guns: a COLT K-MODEL .45 ACP, a SMITH AND WESSON .38 FOUR-INCH, a BERETTA .225 ACP.

TERMINATOR (V.O.)
...the Remington 1100 Autoloader...

WIDE as the CLERK, who looks like a sick lizard, pallid and paunchy, takes the rifle from a wall rack. He lays it beside the arsenal of perfectly legal anti-human artillery already on the glass counter.

Terminator scans expressionlessly for additional selections.

CLERK
Anything else?

TERMINATOR
A phased plasma pulse-laser in
the forty watt range...

CLERK
(annoyed)
Just what you see, pal.

He indicates the display case and wall racks with a
minimal gesture.

TERMINATOR
The Uzi 9 millimeter.

CLERK
(setting it out)
You know your weapons, buddy.

Terminator examines each in turn, working the actions with
curt, precise movements.

CLERK
(continuing)Any one of them's ideal for home defense.
Which'll it be?

TERMINATOR
All.

The clerk digs deep and finds a scrap of a smile.

CLERK
Maybe I'll close early.
Cash or charge?

Instead of replying, Terminator takes a box of shotgun shells from a stack on the display case.

CLERK
Sorry, I can't sell the ammo
with the guns. You'll have
to---Hey!

Terminator has calmly begun feeding the shells into the shotgun.

CLERK
(continuing)
You can't to that...

TERMINATOR
(evenly)
Wrong.

He raises the barrel and pulls the trigger. The gun THUNDERS.

"Ideal for home defense". Love that line.

Even if they end up losing the occasional opportunity for a minor drug bust because the occupant flushed a joint down the toilet, I think not accidentally killing innocent people makes it more than a fair trade.

I may be in the minority, but not accidentally killing guilty people makes it more than a fair trade.

Put yourself in the intruder's shoes, are you going to stop because you get hit with birdshot?

Hell, yes, but then again a home invasion, at night, into a locked, dark house (didn't Spike imply the shotgun would be by his bed?) probably necessitates being extremely drunk or high, so who knows what the response would be. In addition to screaming in pain and moving like hell away from the source of the blast, if one were able, I mean.

It may be just that I've seen a few too many people do insanely shitty, sick things to other people, but I'm reluctant to live without a weapon in the house. Still and all, I try to keep a sense of humor about it.

Not a gun owner, but know my share of hunters. Neither my wife nor my mother would ever want one in the house. I respect their judgment.

Personally know of two suicides by gun. One might have been hastened by proximity to a gun. The other one, it wouldn't have mattered. Also had a relative paralyzed in an accident with a gun.

Never in my life have I ever been close to wanting one for personal protection. Meaning there was never an incident where it even seemed like a remotely good idea. They are untrustworthy, dangerous tools.

Never in my life have I ever been close to wanting one for personal protection. Meaning there was never an incident where it even seemed like a remotely good idea. They are untrustworthy, dangerous tools.

Many gun owners are indeed untrustworthy, dangerous tools (especially, in my experience, hunters who find nothing as enjoyable as heading out at dawn with a case of cold ones), but if I had your experience with guns I might not want guns around, either.

It is different in the country. There are more guns, meaning they're easy to come by, even for people who shouldn't have them, and the only patrolling cops do are on the highway and state routes, for speeders. There's also the occasional prison escape, which is local high drama, and within the last five years cops with long guns have twice gone strolling through my parents' corn field looking for escapees.

Put yourself in the intruder's shoes, are you going to stop because you get hit with birdshot?

If you've ever get shotgunned by any sort of load, even rock salt (remember Kill Bill 2?) at close range, you will in fact stop. It probably won't kill you, but it would feel like a literal sledgehammer to whatever it hit, and leave a nasty bleeding wound.

I do understand others feelings about if you are going to do it, then turn it loose. As I said, it's predicated on my particular choice being quite capable of emptying a 15 round magazine (the other big advantage to semi auto over pump) in under 10 seconds. Sorry for the boring tactical digression.

In fact, to come back around to the regulatory discussion, it sort of creeps me out that you can just plunk down your money and ID and buy one - here is what they look like in base and completely legally modified (in Georgia anyway) form. It's an easily concealable form factor that can do a lot of damage, very quickly.

I don't think so. There have always been bad apples, sure, but since the advent of COPS on TV, the public image of a police officer has been someone who gets to bust heads with impunity. That was never the case 30, 40, 50 years ago, when the public image of a cop was Andy of Mayberry, basically. Somebody who would protect the innocent, was fair and wise, and a trusted, admired member of society. If you did a poll now, I don't think a majority of people would say they admire cops.

This sounds right. I'm also often surprised by the care with which police procedure is discussed in documentaries, books, histories, and films from forty and fifty years ago. Even before Miranda cops didn't just lay on the nightstick whenever they felt like it. There was substantial regard for the rights of the accused. More, it seems, than today.

I'm much more concerned by the apparent lack of warrants involved in looking into emails in the Petraeus case than I am Ray (RDP)'s ranting about Obama The Bad Witch and his Secret Knowledge.

Cops shouldn't have SWAT teams. Period. The militarization of the police force is a vile, evil end in and of itself. Even if *no one dies.*

Agree again.

Same here. I get that not having SWAT teams makes a cop's life a hair more dangerous. I'll venture that by making arrests more prudently and without a paramilitary arm, though, a combination of fewer police and fewer citizens will be killed overall.

You know what phone video has led to?

Laws making it illegal to record the police.

Good lord, it's like you've never interacted with a cop.

Rickey, some of the videos are surreal. Wish I had the link, but I remember one vividly where the cop knows he's being videotaped by the car's driver, and he keeps 'inviting' the passenger out of the car. The passenger keeps asking the cop if that means he HAS to get out of the car, or whether he can lawfully refuse. For something like 10 minutes the cop repeats variations of 'Sir, I'd like you to step out of the car. Now.' The guy keeps asking if he has to get out, or can decline to get out. He's not being a wise guy, either, and takes pains to make that clear. He just doesn't know what his options are. After the 30th repeat of the exchange the cop, who has the tightly wrapped demeanor of Micheal Biehn's marine in The Abyss, loses it and grabs the passenger and pulls him through the car's open window.

Dude, circle up the jerk reaction all you want, but I assure you, you are just not following basic logic and concepts of structured debate here. If that is because you're stupid, well, come to grips with your limitations or whatever.

Don't the rules of debate require Joe to specify (4000 posts ago, but small steps for little feet) where he'd draw the line? "No personal nukes, no private grenade launcher, no _____?"

Among the things you don't get to say are "No personal nukes, no private grenade launchers, but those don't count as regulating the right to bear arms because they just don't and you're an idiot for thinking otherwise because."

(Also, once we assume that Holder is lying, then he could be lying about not informing Obama as well.)

This is lawyerly horseshit, as though everybody doesn't lie. Cops lie. Prosecutors lie. Judges lie. Defendants lie. Witnesses lie. "Ooh, ooh, so-and-so lied, we can't trust anything he ever says ever" may fool a naive juror, but c'mon. The great thing about the internet is we can pretend we're grown-ups.

Don't the rules of debate require Joe to specify (4000 posts ago, but small steps for little feet) where he'd draw the line? "No personal nukes, no private grenade launcher, no _____?"

No, especially since the main part of the debate was whether a flat gun ban was constitutional.

Among the things you don't get to say are "No personal nukes, no private grenade launchers, but those don't count as regulating the right to bear arms because they just don't and you're an idiot for thinking otherwise because."

I don't think so. There have always been bad apples, sure, but since the advent of COPS on TV, the public image of a police officer has been someone who gets to bust heads with impunity. That was never the case 30, 40, 50 years ago, when the public image of a cop was Andy of Mayberry, basically. Somebody who would protect the innocent, was fair and wise, and a trusted, admired member of society. If you did a poll now, I don't think a majority of people would say they admire cops.

This sounds right. I'm also often surprised by the care with which police procedure is discussed in documentaries, books, histories, and films from forty and fifty years ago. Even before Miranda cops didn't just lay on the nightstick whenever they felt like it. There was substantial regard for the rights of the accused. More, it seems, than today.

The reason for that Andy of Mayberry image was simple: The violence that police perpetuated 50 years ago was off camera and directed against people that most Andy Griffith Show watchers never paid any attention to, and before TV came along it was even worse. If Rodney King had happened before the age of home video, there's not a chance in hell that more than a handful of white people would ever have believed that a cop beat the tar out of him, and there's absolutely no way that any policeman would ever have faced trial. Unlawful official violence today can often get out of control, but it's also monitored and exposed so much faster in the 21st century than it ever was before. It can seem to be more ubiquitous, but this is one of those cases where we really are better off than we used to be.

I'm much more concerned by the apparent lack of warrants involved in looking into emails in the Petraeus case than I am Ray (RDP)'s ranting about Obama The Bad Witch and his Secret Knowledge.

Ray's still never addressed the question of what should be done about that shirtless wonder who seems to think that a Republican congressman is the head of the FBI, and acts accordingly. Talk about a clown show.

Here's an off-topic question - I'm going to Boston for the first time as a tourist in many years (only gigs and weddings since college). Before I go invade Sed Sox Therapy with this question, does anyone have any good can't-miss or randomly odd things I shouldn't miss over Thanksgiving weekend? Weird tips especially appreciated.

OK, then, who was the government superior who issued a rule causing a mind to be well-regulated? Or passions? Or a clock?

The definition didn't require that the superior be a government. In the case of a clock, the "superior" would be the clockmaker. In the case of the mind, that would be the exercise of rational control rather than the passions.

In the case of the militia, the Constitution expressly gives power to the states and to the federal government "To provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress".

does anyone have any good can't-miss or randomly odd things I shouldn't miss over Thanksgiving weekend?

Well, my wife and I are going up to visit our son. He works at the Kendall Square Cinema 'til midnight on Thanksgiving so I think we'll spend Thanksgiving night watching free movies. I can ask if you can be "Uncle Lassus" for a night if you want to join us. :)

Don't the rules of debate require Joe to specify (4000 posts ago, but small steps for little feet) where he'd draw the line? "No personal nukes, no private grenade launcher, no _____?"

He already "answered" it in 8793, in pretty priceless fashion:

I don't have a comprehensive list, and I'm sure some items on such a list would be cause for debate.

God forbid we embark on something that might require debate; let's just keep arguing against strawmen...

No, especially since the main part of the debate was whether a flat gun ban was constitutional.

That was the part of the debate where you were arguing with yourself. The rest of us were leading you to the self-awareness that you are in fact OK with some weapons bans, and then a discussion of what weapons should be banned and what other regulations should apply, which you so kindly declined.

Among the things you don't get to say are "No personal nukes, no private grenade launchers, but those don't count as regulating the right to bear arms because they just don't and you're an idiot for thinking otherwise because."

Since I never said that, I guess I'm in the clear.

Putting aside the grenade launchers, there are no non-deranged people who believe the Second Amendment protects a person's right to possess, e.g., a nuclear weapon.

Because idiots and deranged people are obviously very, very different things. C'mon Jack, pay attention!

Rush Limbaugh on Thursday lashed out at feminists — who he called ‘feminazis’ — over the news that male genitalia are shrinking.

The conservative radio host pointed to an Italian study which found that the average male penis was 10 percent smaller than 50 years ago. Researchers cited weight gain around the waist, smoking, stress and environmental pollutants as factors.

But Limbaugh wasn’t buying that explanation.

‘I think it’s feminism,’ he declared. ‘If it’s tied to the last 50 years — the average size of [a male’s] member is 10 percent smaller than 50 years — it has to be the feminazis, the chickification and everything else.’

Here, I'm gonna do my thang here and ask a broad ignorant question: "What happened to the 'war for oil' wingnuts?" I haven't heard of any flotilla of tankers carrying off great reserves of Afghani or Iraqi oil.

Bottom line with Rice: I wouldn't confirm her as town dog catcher at this point. She allowed herself to be utterly duped by the administration, when even a modicum of skepticism, intel, and sense would have told her that it was probably a terrorist attack.

Obama used her, to her great detriment. Way to treat a minority woman in your administration.

Yeah, funny how we forget, but according to those vehement reassurances by Bushco, the Iraq War was supposed to be a money-making deal for the USA. We were going to be repaid not only our military expenditures, but more, much more, was going to come to us.

But the hard feelings from the campaign, during which the two candidates nearly came to blows at a community debate, continue to haunt Sherman. In particular, according to Politico, he's paying the price for a mailer backing his campaign produced by a political action committee with one of those generic names that leaves its true leanings and support completely murky: Californians for Integrity in Government.

With the Democratic vote split between the two candidates, both were seeking to appeal to Republican voters by gathering endorsements from local and national GOP figures. After Berman announced the support of Republican Sens. John McCain of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Sherman trotted out the endorsements of several local GOP politicians.

The PAC mailer applied the icing to this cow-pie cake, picturing Berman along with several prominent -- but highly unpopular among Republicans -- Democratic members of Congress. "Maxine Waters, Barney Frank and Barbara Boxer all want you to vote for Howard Berman," read the mailer, referring to, respectively, a local African American congresswoman who has faced an ethics probe, a high-profile Massachusetts lawmaker who is openly gay and California's liberal junior senator.

According to Politico, Sherman was raked over the coals by California's congressional delegation on Wednesday, with some members denouncing the Californians for Integrity in Government mailer to his face. Rancor from his own party over the ad might cost Sherman a seat on the Foreign Affairs Committee, even though he has repudiated it and pointed out that he has no control over campaign messages from outside groups.

We'll start seeing more and more of these type of races in California, with Democrats trying to get the Republican/Conservative vote, and going after each other which has a lot more repercussions for them than in a standard two party race. Sherman's won the race, but he's going to be the guy looking from the outside in, and with little political juice or power to change things.

Ray, given the Rush Limbaugh small penis thing, and taking notice that Philip Roth has made his retirement official, what say you give the one-man circle jerk a holiday in commemoration. [Ointment for hand warts on your left as you go out.]

‘I think it’s feminism,’ he declared. ‘If it’s tied to the last 50 years — the average size of [a male’s] member is 10 percent smaller than 50 years — it has to be the feminazis, the chickification and everything else.’

Here, I'm gonna do my thang here and ask a broad ignorant question: "What happened to the 'war for oil' wingnuts?" I haven't heard of any flotilla of tankers carrying off great reserves of Afghani or Iraqi oil.

I think a more proper term would be War because of oil, but even that is a bit simplistic, but as Morty reminds us, even the war hawks claimed that we would recoup any losses with future Iraq oil revenues. That just turned out to be yet another thing they got disastrously wrong.

There are also the snooty East Coast Republican intellectual types, such as Peggy Noonan, who look down their noses at a woman who doesn't shop at Neiman Marcus and didn't attend an Ivy League university. But Peggy made a fool of herself calling the election for Romney on Nov. 5. Who's going to care what she and her ilk have to say next time?

Some Republicans will say Palin has too much baggage from 2008, and we need to look for a new Sarah Palin. But I don't see what's wrong with the one we've got. Ever since the 1990s, Republicans have been looking for the next Ronald Reagan. Reagan is now revered in bipartisan circles, but during his presidency he was, like Palin, ridiculed by liberals. They cited "Bedtime for Bonzo" and sneered at his no-name college degree.

Sarah Palin is the new Ronald Reagan: charming and affable and unwilling to back down if she's right. I can't see what's wrong with that.

Many gun owners are indeed untrustworthy, dangerous tools (especially, in my experience, hunters who find nothing as enjoyable as heading out at dawn with a case of cold ones), but if I had your experience with guns I might not want guns around, either.

It is different in the country. There are more guns, meaning they're easy to come by, even for people who shouldn't have them, and the only patrolling cops do are on the highway and state routes, for speeders. There's also the occasional prison escape, which is local high drama, and within the last five years cops with long guns have twice gone strolling through my parents' corn field looking for escapees.

Jack, thanks for your response. Most of my hunting relatives are people who grew up in small towns or on farms but now live in bigger cities. So the hunting land is away from their primary residence, and the arms are as well. Different situation for rural residents.

If she were smart, Palin would recruit a member of her impressive gay fanboy base — yes, she has one — to help run her campaign. I nominate Kevin DuJan of the widely read gay conservative blog HillBuzz, a Palin stalwart since 2008...

...Furthermore, looks count in politics, and Palin at age 48, has it all over her possible competition, including Hillary Rodham Clinton, who will be 69 by election day 2016 and who let someone talk her into adopting the flowing blond locks of a college student, making her look like Brunnhilde in a smalltown Wagner production. Men love Sarah Palin, and she loves men.

That Palin crush article was written by Charlotte Allen, who has also said that "Katrina was the best thing to happen to New Orleans" because it "provided an opportunity to a huge number of New Orleans residents living in passive dependency on welfare to get out of New Orleans and change their lives for the better." Our own Ray-Ray couldn't have put it any better.

Edmundo - That sounds almost creepy enough to be highly entertaining. At least to me. My GF, maybe not as much.

What sort of stuff you like, Lassus? And where you coming from?

'Zop - Oh, you know, off-the-beaten path museums or historical locations. I doubt there will be many concerts, but that I can check on as far as classical music. Honestly, I'm really just looking for random interesting crap to look at, experience, see. I'm not all aggro about it, it's going to be a laid-back weekend, but people here usually have good ideas. I'll be driving in from northern NY, about a 4.5 hour trip.

Oh god, a Palin candidacy would be the most awesome thing we could ask for. As far as her "gay fanboy base", I'm not really sure whomever wrote that article understands the attraction.